The state of Hawaii vigorously defended the lower court’s ruling [upholding Hawaii’s sensitive places ban] and the default [vampire] property rule in general. The revised law, it argued, “represents a permissible effort to vindicate the rights of Hawaii’s citizens to exclude armed individuals from their private property.” Default property rules are not unknown to the law, it observed, pointing to a 1951 Supreme Court ruling in favor of a municipal law that forbade “door-to-door solicitation” unless the owner gave express consent, even though such a law might appear to violate the First Amendment.
Hawaii also pointedly noted that, when it comes to history-and-tradition tests, the state has a unique tradition of its own as a former sovereign country. The plaintiffs claimed there was a historical tradition of implied permission in American history. “That may be true in other states, but in Hawaii, open carry has never been the default,” the state told the court. “Hawaii has limited the carrying of weapons in public spaces since at least 1852—decades before the U.S. Constitution was extended to Hawaii.” (The islands were annexed by the United States in 1898.)
It is unclear how the justices will receive that particular argument. The conservative justices have already struggled to define exactly which parts of American history count for the history-and-tradition test, having punted on its scope in Bruen and largely avoided it in Rahimi. The Supreme Court even refused to take up a question presented by the plaintiffs in Wolford on whether post-Reconstruction laws can be cited as historical analogues. That evasion suggests that the justices aren’t much closer to a consensus than they were in 2022.
Either way, the court’s overall approach to Second Amendment cases since 2020 is not reassuring for gun-control supporters. Only five other states have a default property rule similar to Hawaii’s for carrying guns, so the national legal landscape would not significantly shift. At the same time, Wolford is an opportunity for the court to declare how extensively guns can be present and visible in everyday American life. Oral arguments will likely be held this spring, with a decision to come by the end of the court’s term in June.
— Matt Ford in The Supreme Court Could Make It Easier to Bring a Gun Everywhere
Maybe we should give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians. California back to Mexico while we’re at it.
Texas be let go independent. I’m sure that’ll be fun for all parties involved.
I was stationed in Hawaii. The Japanese have pretty much taken over Hawaii. And the natives hate it.
And if Mexico takes over California, then I fully expect the cartels will do the same things to the politicians in that state that they do in Mexico. And that is to chop their heads off. And then leave them in gay bars and other businesses.
Yes, that’s what happens in Mexico now okay. If you haven’t heard about it.
I’m perfectly willing to let California go through that. Happily eager even.
Being a jerk while carrying a gun especially open carry, is playing into a negative stereotype.
Having self-imposed limits on civil rights, are the best way to keep your rights from being limited. By the government.
So conceal carry when you go into a private business. I do most of the time.
Shopping malls. Movie theaters. County fairs. Conventions. Restaurants. I carry everywhere I go.
Open carrying a long gun INTO a coffee shop or grocery store is a great way to scare everyone. That’s when they start asking the government to try to ban you from open carry. And try to pass even more restrictions.
It’s private property. Don’t do it.
I hope the SC does strike down this stupid law. But when it does don’t go out in public and do stupid things yourself.
And no. I’m not saying to stop having an open carry protest. That is a 1st amendment civil right.
Great advice, Chris.
I love that HI has been getting attention. They’ve been more anti-carry than even CA. Their desperate defense won’t work. It’s a national right, not a state right. It has already been established that the right to bear arms means the right for an individual to carry. They’re just trying to run out the clock with #resist nonsense. Get this done already.
The worst thing to happen in this country was making it socially ok. To be rude and nasty in public. To go out of your way and seek out people and go offend them.
Prostitutes operating next to elementary schools. G@.ys attacking churches like the klan use to do. And the ACLU calls that free speech. But not open carry. That they don’t approve of.
Like I’ve said before. The “free speech freaks” will end up causing the loss of the 1st amendment.
Chris T,
sel-defense
As usual, you’ve identified each individual tree in the forest, by species, and . . . missed the forest. One might almost believe you didn’t understand that the 1A applies ONLY to limit the scope of government and government action. Has exactly zero application to individual response to offensive speech.
If you were a little more discerning about what is actually happening, it would concern you more that we, as individuals, are now aggressively prosecuted for exercising our right to self-defense. Leftist/fascists are allowed to bully, impede, and even aggressively confront, right-of-center demonstrators or even those trying to video Leftist demonstrations. Thus, the government is not ALLOWED (per the 1A) to prohibit such behavior, but somehow local (Soros-funded) local authorities can re-write centuries-old jurisprudence on the right to self-defense by insisting on such idiocies as KKKalifornia’s “duty to retreat” insanity.
Government doesn’t need to legislate the worst of the Leftist/fascist’s program; they simply enable their street thugs (Antifa and Burn/Loot/Murder) to do it for them, and prosecute you for defending yourself against it.
“Having self-imposed limits on civil rights, are the best way to keep your rights from being limited. By the government.”
The very act of having to individually self-impose limits in the valid exercise of constitutional rights because the government will infring if a person does not self-impose, in and of its self is a form of government tyranny by threat.
.40 cal,
Ed Zachary. As I tried to tell Chris T, the government is getting slapped down for trying to “soft censor” views it doesn’t like, so they’ve wholesale authorized their street thugs to do it. And one of the most glaring items putting the (obvious) lie to the Leftist/fascists’ contention that Trump is a wanna-be fascist is that he has expressly NOT encouraged his (ample) legion of followers to actively oppose the nonsense the Leftist/fascists are subjecting us to.
If Trump really DID ever “encourage his followers to revolt”, Leftist/fascist blood would be running deep in the gutters. But (and I say this as praise), we don’t roll that way. If the “fascist” (sic) right ever decides to throw down? Trust me, Leftist idiots, you’ll know. It won’t be pleasant, but you WILL know, without a doubt, that y’all done stepped on your last rake.
It doesn’t matter when Hawaii was ‘annexed’. Once they became a state of the United States they became subject to the Constitution. And no matter their past before that, they are still subject to matters of law legal and constitutional matters concerning firearms for THE UNITED STATES.
If not, then no one who is an American citizen with residence in Hawaii is an American citizen any longer for its that same Constitution that made them American citizens. So Hawaii does not get to pick-n-choose which constitutional ‘things’ it wants to allow or not ’cause we didn’t do that before we became a state’.
.40 cal,
I’ve owned a house in Kona, HI for going on 20 years, now. I love the islands, and I (like most right-of-center folks I know) made a real effort to get to know the neighbors, particularly the (tiny minority – less than 2% of the population of the islands) “Hawaiian natives”. I know all about the usurpation of the Hawaiian throne, and the intentional de-emphasis on the local culture.
But the residents of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly (84%) for statehood. Now, in fairness, by the time of the statehood vote, “native” Hawaiians were already a small minority, but records suggest that a majority of them voted for it, too. I can totally understand why a native Hawaiian might resent the usurpation of Queen Liliuokalani, and the colonization of their islands by the Yankees. Given historical reality, it was a choice of that or becoming an ACTUAL British colony, because Britain wanted those islands, and at that point they had a navy that made their desire achievable.
History is more complicated than most people believe.
No. For example I have said you have a right to open carry long guns as a form of 1st amendment protest. That is something that the “gun community” refused to publicly support.
But there is wide support for someone walking around with a str@-p on dil do Well fitted for public attire. Which they did in Austin Texas. Also walking around with large sagging e exposed beasts.
To protest against the open carry guns. The “gun community” openly supported that, but yet they argue about someone openly carrying guns in public as a former protest. Or just going about your day.
Remember the banana in your holster protest?
Yes the “gun community” is very selective about such things.